On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:19:59PM -0800, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2012-11-23, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Do whatever you want - you might be waiting a while for CentOS to > > fix it, though, because they don't fix user reported bugs. They just > > repackage whatever Red Hat releases as RHEL. > > Yes, that's why I was asking--I was wondering whether it is safe to wait > for what could be some time for a) RHEL to decide to patch (if they do > so at all), b) RHEL to patch, and c) CentOS to patch. IOW, is the high > load the only likely symptom of the originail aild patch, or are there > potentially other problems, such as performance degradation that I > haven't seen yet, that would make waiting for CentOS unwise? There is no side effect other than the load. There are not performance issues with the ailds behaving like this. > >> Do you know why I might not see this behavior on a different CentOS 6.x > >> kernel? > >> > >> Linux xxxxxx 2.6.32-279.5.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Aug 24 01:07:11 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > > Because the log hang bug hadn't been fixed in that kernel. > > This actually gives me some optimism that RHEL might introduce a new > kernel sooner rather than later--that kernel wasn't all that long ago, > and there have been quite a few (mostly unrelated) patches since. Doubt it. Given that I'm the RHEL XFS maintainer.... > (That's why I was so surprised--I'm not used to the RHEL kernel moving > so quickly!) What, you're not used to having serious bugs fixed quickly? That's why people pay for RHEL... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
